1. Hospital Resource Utilization Associated With Endoprosthetic Reconstruction Versus Primary Arthroplasty
- Author
-
Tae Won B. Kim, Alec S Kellish, Justin C Frisby, Christopher W Hoedt, Christina J. Gutowski, and Christopher Rivera-Pintado
- Subjects
Male ,medicine.medical_specialty ,Knee Joint ,medicine.medical_treatment ,Arthroplasty, Replacement, Hip ,Malignancy ,03 medical and health sciences ,0302 clinical medicine ,Risk Factors ,medicine ,Humans ,Orthopedics and Sports Medicine ,030212 general & internal medicine ,Resource consumption ,Arthroplasty, Replacement, Knee ,Aged ,Retrospective Studies ,030222 orthopedics ,business.industry ,Length of Stay ,Middle Aged ,Patient Acceptance of Health Care ,Plastic Surgery Procedures ,medicine.disease ,Arthroplasty ,Comorbidity ,Hospitals ,Surgery ,Hospitalization ,Orthopedic surgery ,Current Procedural Terminology ,Female ,Hip Joint ,business ,Cost of care ,Resource utilization - Abstract
Endoprosthetic reconstructions of the hip and knee are currently reimbursed as primary hip and knee arthroplasty according to Current Procedural Terminology ( CPT ) coding guidelines. The purpose of this study was to compare hospital resources consumed by patients undergoing endoprosthetic reconstruction with those consumed by patients undergoing primary arthroplasty. The authors' hypothesis was that the former group carries more comorbidities, experiences longer length of stay (LOS), and has greater resource consumption. A retrospective review was performed of 61 patients undergoing endoprosthetic reconstruction and 745 patients undergoing primary hip or knee arthroplasty between 2015 and 2018 at a single institution. Demographic, clinical, and financial data were compared. The Charlson Comorbidity Index (CCI) was used to measure patients' health status and identify comorbidities associated with prolonged LOS through linear regression analysis. Patients who underwent endoprosthetic reconstruction had a greater than 3.5 times average LOS compared with primary arthroplasty patients: 10.81 days vs 2.94 days ( P P Orthopedics . 2021;44(1):e73–e79.]
- Published
- 2019